Wednesday round-up

Last Monday’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby continues to dominate commentary on the Court.  At Dorf on Law, Michael Dorf continues his analysis of the decision with a post that focuses on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent; he suggests that “the ideological divisions on the Court happen to correspond to jurisprudential divisions: the liberals are more favorably inclined to dynamic interpretation (of both statutes and the Constitution), while the conservatives are more favorably inclined to static interpretation (in both realms as well).”  At Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Leslie Griffin and Marci Hamilton provide a “top ten” list of “things to love, like, and hate” about the Ginsburg dissent, while in an op-ed for the Boston Globe Kent Greenfield contends that Justice Anthony Kennedy “should have listened” to Ginsburg rather than Justice Samuel Alito, the author of the majority opinion – who, Greenfield argues, “use[d] claims of modesty to mask expansive logic,” so that “lower courts faced with future cases will be forced to apply the logic, rather than the rhetoric, of the opinion.”  At Bloomberg View, Megan McArdle discusses what she regards as “the most interesting thing . . . about the long, loud debate over the recent Hobby Lobby decision: Both sides believe that they are having someone else’s views forcibly imposed upon them.”  At Harvard Law School’s Bill of Health blog, Gregory Curfman responds to Tom Goldstein’s post at this blog, in which Goldstein suggested that Justice Stephen Breyer may have joined the majority in last week’s order in the Wheaton College case because he “accomplished much more by joining the majority than by dissenting.”  Curfman offers “an alternative explanation”:  “that Justice Breyer simply regards for-profit and religious affiliated nonprofit entities to be fundamentally different.”  At the Alliance for Justice’s Justice Watch blog, Gretchen Borchelt is critical of the decision, arguing that, although it “is squarely about women’s health and equality, the male justices in the majority refuse to acknowledge the centrality of women.”

A friendly reminder:  We rely on our readers to send us links for the round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.  Thank you!